SpaceX FISO Telecon and Presentation
Future In-Space Operations Teleconference with SpaceX Garrett Reisman, SpaceRef Buisness
“On August 27, 2014, former NASA astronaut Garrett Reisman participated in the Future In-Space Operations (FISO) teleconference. Now the DragonRider Program Manager for SpaceX, Reisman presented a slide show on SpaceX commercial spaceflight.”
So, propulsive re-entry is out. I’m surprised nobody asked Garrett the obvious question, what led to that decision? Do they no longer think they can pull it off, or do they not think NASA would sign off on it for commercial crew?
It would seem to be NASA’s desire to have assured safety while SpaceX gains experience with propulsive landings, both in active use and via the DragonFly test article at McGregor. Once everyone is satisfied that the technology is mature and reliable, I’m sure the parachutes will stayed stored unless needed in the event of SuperDraco engine failure.
most likely a NASA call. going with a Soyuz-like landing profile is not a big surprise though, all things considered from the crew safety perspective. i speculate that it may be a compromise until all-propulsive landings are thoroughly tested on DragonFly and on unmanned flight tests.
No easy way for parachutes to function as backup in case of a thruster failure during terminal descent as the capsule is too low for chutes to be deployed. However thrusters can provide attenuation without problems. Using chutes and thrusters simultaneously one must be cautious about the reactive N2O4 attacking the chute risers. however a statement regarding pinpoint landings suggests they are going to shift to more active use of thrusters to control location of landing as well.
Well, the stated way is to test the SuperDracos at a high altitude, if they have failed, then abort to parachute landing.
we should learn a lot more about the hazards and survival from possible SD failure modes from the DragonFly testing.
Just don’t go too fast as the cargo chutes they use, the leading edge would fold under. Open face would work and would provide forward motion for some motion toward the target and a stall landing at zero descent as sky divers do. Even WW2 paratroopers could side slip and pull on the risers to land softer. SpaceX has no controls at all. Don’t make any changes though that would cause a slip. It works the way it is.
Did some research. I thought open face was ram. It is venting from the rear in fact. 3-1 glide. May not be enough to be useful. I found Paragliders though. 10-1 glide. If it works. Originally invented for NASA capsules. Pop one, keep another for reserve or Super Dracco for backup. Or 3. I am dreaming. Never happen. Boeing could land at their base,KSC. just like DC.
FWIW the existing Dragon Cargo chutes are not sufficient. Dragon V2 chutes are a complete redesign.
Cheers.
Well worth watching and listening to this presentation. Lots of interesting stuff but not really new unless you haven’t been following SpaceX closely.
A number of questions concerning FH which couldn’t be answered really definitively as Garrett is concerned with the DragonRider Program but what he said was interesting enough.
A comment or two on their recent incident at McGreggor wrt a sensor which wouldn’t occur with F9v1.1 due to redundancy.
Cheers
Glad to hear the NASA missions will land with parachutes and rockets in the last seconds with shock absorber legs. So I can watch the landings. At least they come down on land. Nothing about steerable parachutes, so land on a dry lake bed. Crew should be happy with that.Yea! I don’t have to write anybody. All you other people that sounded like you wanted a thrill will have to wait. Bad news, if I heard correct, was that NASA wants a new capsule each time. Not as many flights as cargo though, so don’t have to build as many. Should run up the cost since no reuse. Have to find another customer to reuse. The pad abort will not be 39A the one they will use for crew.
Thanks for posting. Since we know how much needs to finish crew, about 400 million$. It will be 3 years. So 133 a year. Boeing will need twice that since they are behind. If SNC is added on, that would be about what is budgeted now. So NASA could do 3, if they want to.
NASA would receive virgin spacecraft, but that just means that NASA gets jus primae noctis, but the ship is not discarded. SpaceX uses the ship in re-use mode for its other clients – such as the far greater traffic going to Bigelow in the same timeframe.
I have wondered about the cargo capsules also, if they can be reused for bigelow cargo runs.
Good question. I wonder. Dragon 1 lands in water. That is not a good thing for re-usability.
I doubt it. As far as I know, Bigelow stations don’t have CBM berthing ports.
He would either need an adapter or else its no-go. I see that Dragon V2 can be configured as crew or crew/cargo. I wonder if a pure cargo version is envisioned and if so, would that do cargo runs to ISS and Bigelow, and Dragon 1 be retired.
“The pad abort will not be 39A the one they will use for crew.”
It doesn’t have to be, it’s just a pad abort test. it won’t be sitting on top of a Falcon 9 rocket, either, just on a framework with an interface simulating a Falcon 9 rocket.
SpaceX is aiming for 2016, not 2017.
Cheers
Folks:
Dr. Reisman confirmed that the F9R used no explosives during it’s ‘self-temination’. Seems that the process involved shutting down the Merlin engines (the ones that were still running, that is) then the working of some valves. Whether the valves opened or closed and whether the tanks were over-pressured or under-pressured he didn’t say.
But the bottom line is that whatever flight termination system they used works just fine and will probably be directly applied to launches from the new Brownsville launch site. This ‘failure’ will probably appease the FAA regarding those plans.
tinker
Currently SpaceX is not planning to put manned Dragons on the Falcon Heavy. Reading between the lines of the questions Boeing is considering about putting something on the Falcon Heavy but may go a different way.
As long as you can step out onto dry land almost immediately after touchdown… I highly doubt anyone is going to give a damn whether it was a 100% powered desent. As long as you don’t have to flop around on the ocean it is a plus.
Why didn’t anyone ask if they are going to attempt a landing of the in flight abort rocket or if they can?
The in-flight abort is to take place at max drag. Unless there’s some sort of canopy over the front of the first stage, chances are it’ll be ripped apart once the capsule separates from the stage. It’ll return to Earth alright, just not in one piece.
Cheers.
I checked and the only thing he said was it would be a modified F9. It will only go transonic. Maybe 600mph. They may cut down the number of engines, low fuel. I once suggested to only use a 2nd. stage with low fuel. They will use the least they can. The trunk will probably tear apart, but the second and 1st may not at 600mph. Those tank domes are pretty strong. So they could fly back. It depends on what modified means. My guess is 3 engines on the 1st stage and low fuel. No engine or fuel on 2nd stage. Trunk and capsule.
With any luck we’ll find out in Jan15.
Cheers